State inspection was called for

Philpot did his civic duty in independent ‘investigation’ of police project

Speak Out

DORIS BENNETT UPPER NORTH ROW RD. STERLING

At the March 3 select board meeting, Mr. Paul Sushchyk and Mr. Richard Sheppard accused Mr. Russell Philpot of having exceeded his authority and violated board policy. It was based on the fact that he had contacted the state for an opinion regarding reported code violations in the construction of the police station (undisputed by Mr. Philpot), but without having first contacted the board to vote on whether he could do so.

In Mr. Sushchyk’s words, “we have enacted board policy that before you do any investigation, you come before the board, talk about it in open session, and you have a vote,” and “when you called the state building inspector, that’s when you went over the line.”

Mr. Philpot’s response was that he didn’t think he needed to be granted authority to do that, and in my opinion, he’s correct.

“1. It is the policy of this board that unless specifically authorized by a vote of the board, no member will use or attempt to use his or her position as a selectman to exert any purported authority or to seek to influence or otherwise interfere with the operation of any municipal department, officer or employee, or to seek anything that is not otherwise available to a similarly situated member of the public.

“2. Further, carrying on ‘investigations’ is the prerogative of the board, as specified in the Massachusetts General Laws, and therefore, no individual member should presume to usurp that authority as regards the operation of any municipal board, committee, employee or officer.”

As specified in General Laws Chapter 41, Section 23B, “the selectmen of any town may make an investigation into the conduct and operation of any town department.” Contrary to what the policy states and to what the other Selectmen appear to believe, however, this statute does not
give selectmen the exclusive right or authority (i.e., it is not
the “prerogative” of the board), to conduct such investigations, nor does this law (and hence the policy) even cover the investigation that Mr. Philpot is conducting.

However, since the selectmen believed it was covered, it begs the question of why the selectmen didn’t make the same accusations against Mr. Philpot when he contacted the Police Department, the Fire Department, Sterling’s building inspector and several building commissioners in the Worcester area, as well.

Based on the board’s own minutes, Mr. Philpot contacted those persons and departments on the same basis as he contacted the state — without first coming before the board; without it then being talked about in open session; and without having a vote of the board to authorize what he ultimately did. If Mr. Philpot’s reason for thinking he didn’t need to be granted authority was because of what he had already done without a single objection from the selectmen, it’s no wonder!

However, it may well have been because he reportedly would have been entitled to make the same request of the state as a concerned taxpayer of Sterling.

In the end, the fact that selectmen Sushchyk and Sheppard did not enforce the policy until Mr. Philpot contacted the state doesn’t matter. The reality is that Mr. Philpot exercised due diligence with respect to reported code violations; that mentality and action should be expected of every selectman! However, can there be any doubt that our senior selectmen would not have voted to grant Mr. Philpot the authority to do what he ultimately did? I can only wonder whether this was the thinking behind Mr. Sushchyk’s successful motion at last year’s Town Meeting, to table the citizens’ petition regarding this very statute (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41, Section 23B). Had that been passed, the selectmen would have been obligated to exercise their authority under that law, and not only at their own volition but on the written request of at least 10 citizens.

As I see it, and with all due respect to our “senior” selectmen, perhaps they should worry a lot less about whether accepting a report from the state would usurp “[their] own authority within the town,” and concentrate a lot more on exercising that authority to get things done right, well, and within a reasonable amount of time.

Our “junior” selectman managed to do this as far as the police station is concerned, and with leadership, commitment to code compliance, an eye on responsible spending, and sensitivity to the importance of preserving people’s reputations, as well. Frankly, who could ask for more!